From the BBC website - Dispute over cycle path routing

in message <[email hidden]>, Kennedy Fraser

(') said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/5028158.stm

Dispute over cycle path routing

National Cycle Route 75 stretches from Gourock to Edinburgh
The principal cycle path through central Scotland has been blocked by a
farmer who now faces legal action.

West Lothian Council has served a notice on Roy Orr, insisting that the
path near Blackridge is reinstated.

Mr Orr argues that National Cycle Route 75, connecting the Forth and
Clyde coasts, has no right to cross his land.

Land Reform Act. Just prosecute the bugger. The sooner we nail some hides
to the wall the sooner this sort of thing will stop. But I'm glad to see
West Lothian Council seem to be making the right preliminary moves.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Do not sail on uphill water.
- Bill Lee

On Tue, 30 May 2006 13:36:32 +0100 someone who may be Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Land Reform Act. Just prosecute the bugger. The sooner we nail some hides
to the wall the sooner this sort of thing will stop. But I'm glad to see
West Lothian Council seem to be making the right preliminary moves.

Indeed. I was interested in this assertion in the story, "A
statement from Mr Orr's solicitors claimed the cycleway did not have
planning permission". Since when did highways need planning
permission?

There are a number of cases that have gone quiet recently. There was
a golf course in East Lothian and Network Rail's closure of level
crossings. There is also Mr Trump and his attempts to ride roughshod
over people with his golf course.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen said:

Indeed. I was interested in this assertion in the story, "A
statement from Mr Orr's solicitors claimed the cycleway did not have
planning permission". Since when did highways need planning
permission?

Well they do in England (possibly they don't in Scotland). The
mechanism is a little different from buildings planning permission (as
I understand it, it's effectively granted by County Councils to
themselves and the district council doesn't get much of a say), but
there's still a need for planning permission to be granted.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

David Hansen said:

Indeed. I was interested in this assertion in the story, "A
statement from Mr Orr's solicitors claimed the cycleway did not have
planning permission". Since when did highways need planning
permission?

Well they do in England (possibly they don't in Scotland). The
mechanism is a little different from buildings planning permission (as
I understand it, it's effectively granted by County Councils to
themselves and the district council doesn't get much of a say), but
there's still a need for planning permission to be granted.

regards, Ian SMith

It's irrelevant anyway. The Land Reform Act makes it illegal to bar
progress to someone responsibly excersising their right of access. The
Cycle Route/ ROW argument is superfluous.

druidh

druidh said:

It's irrelevant anyway. The Land Reform Act makes it illegal to bar
progress to someone responsibly excersising their right of access. The
Cycle Route/ ROW argument is superfluous.

Only in Open Access areas, which are a relatively small part of England.
http://www.countrysideaccess.gov.uk/things_to_do/open_access

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Tony Raven said:

Only in Open Access areas, which are a relatively small part of England.
http://www.countrysideaccess.gov.uk/things_to_do/open_access

.... but this is in Scotland.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"I fought the Dharma, and the Dharma won." (Allen Ginsberg)

Don Whybrow said:

Tony Raven said:

Only in Open Access areas, which are a relatively small part of England.
http://www.countrysideaccess.gov.uk/things_to_do/open_access

.... but this is in Scotland.

So it is. Forget what I wrote ;-)

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

druidh said:

It's irrelevant anyway. The Land Reform Act makes it illegal to bar
progress to someone responsibly excersising their right of access. The
Cycle Route/ ROW argument is superfluous.

Only in Open Access areas, which are a relatively small part of
England. http://www.countrysideaccess.gov.uk/things_to_do/open_access

It isn't in England. I know they do things badly in the barbarous lands
to the south, but we're civilised here.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

The Conservative Party now has the support of a smaller proportion of
the electorate in Scotland than Sinn Fein have in Northern Ireland.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Kennedy Fraser

(') said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/5028158.stm

Dispute over cycle path routing

National Cycle Route 75 stretches from Gourock to Edinburgh
The principal cycle path through central Scotland has been blocked by a
farmer who now faces legal action.

West Lothian Council has served a notice on Roy Orr, insisting that the
path near Blackridge is reinstated.

Mr Orr argues that National Cycle Route 75, connecting the Forth and
Clyde coasts, has no right to cross his land.

Land Reform Act. Just prosecute the bugger. The sooner we nail some hides
to the wall the sooner this sort of thing will stop. But I'm glad to see
West Lothian Council seem to be making the right preliminary moves.

Interestingly enough on Reporting Scotland there was a story about the
reopening of the Airdrie/Bathgate railway line. All the live (and why
was it live!) footage was of the reporter walking along the NCN route.

So does anyone know what is going to happen to the cyclepath since it
would appear (implied not explicitly stated) that the line would be
reinstated along its original route?

No one connected the two stories.

Kennedy

Simon Brooke said:

It isn't in England. I know they do things badly in the barbarous lands
to the south, but we're civilised here.

Yes but civilised by whom? ;-)

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

druidh said:

It's irrelevant anyway. The Land Reform Act makes it illegal to bar
progress to someone responsibly excersising their right of access. The
Cycle Route/ ROW argument is superfluous.

Only in Open Access areas, which are a relatively small part of
England. http://www.countrysideaccess.gov.uk/things_to_do/open_access

It isn't in England. I know they do things badly in the barbarous lands
to the south, but we're civilised here.

You're saying there's a right to develop other people's land without any
form of compensation in Scotland?

Maybe they should knock down Niddrie and replace it with sheep farms, in
that case.

IGMC

A

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Kennedy Fraser
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

Quoted message said:

Land Reform Act. Just prosecute the bugger. The sooner we nail some hides
to the wall the sooner this sort of thing will stop. But I'm glad to see
West Lothian Council seem to be making the right preliminary moves.

Don't think there is any way to prosecute under the LRA, it certainly
doesn't include any criminal offences. The local authority issues a notice
requiring the obstruction to be cleared (as they have done) and if it's
ignored then they carry out the required work themselves and recover the
expenses from the landowner. The case only goes to court if the landowner
makes an appeal to a Sheriff.

I'd be happy to see such an obvious case go all the way to appeal, but it
might all come to nothing if the railway line's going to be reinstated along
the route. Wonder how Mr Orr will try to stop the trains.....

--
Duncan Gray

www.mountaineering-scotland.org.uk
The Mountaineering Council of Scotland

On Tue, 30 May 2006 23:24:29 +0100 someone who may be "Ambrose
Nankivell" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

You're saying there's a right to develop other people's land without any
form of compensation in Scotland?

The land was owned by BR until at least the 1970s, they ran trains
along it. After that I suspect that, at some time, the land was
passed to the councils. The farmer may have tried to illegally
appropriate the land and he should be dealt with for this as well.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:28:32 +0100 someone who may be Kennedy Fraser
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Interestingly enough on Reporting Scotland there was a story about the
reopening of the Airdrie/Bathgate railway line. All the live (and why
was it live!) footage was of the reporter walking along the NCN route.

So does anyone know what is going to happen to the cyclepath since it
would appear

The original pre-feasibility study identified a single line with the
cycle path alongside, other then in a few locations. The survey for
this study was done by bicycle. The path would still have need
moving because Sustrans had built it right up to the centre of the
formation.

The current plan is for a double track and this will mean moving the
path elsewhere. Other than some bridges there is probably enough
land to do this most of the way.

Quoted message said:

(implied not explicitly stated) that the line would be
reinstated along its original route?

That is the plan.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

in message <[email hidden]>, Ambrose Nankivell

(') said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

druidh wrote:
>
> It's irrelevant anyway. The Land Reform Act makes it illegal to bar
> progress to someone responsibly excersising their right of access.
> The Cycle Route/ ROW argument is superfluous.

Only in Open Access areas, which are a relatively small part of
England.
http://www.countrysideaccess.gov.uk/things_to_do/open_access

It isn't in England. I know they do things badly in the barbarous
lands to the south, but we're civilised here.

You're saying there's a right to develop other people's land without
any form of compensation in Scotland?

What is this concept of 'other people's land'? As far as I'm aware, God
made all the land, and He didn't give it to anyone in particular. Very
little of the land in Scotland was enclosed with any pretence of
legality, and even in England the legitimacy of the enclosure of the
commons is pretty doubtful.

For 200 of the last 300 years there was arguable community benefit in
having much of the agricultural land in enclosed private farms - we
needed the food. Now, none of them are economic and they don't produce a
useful proportion of the food we use. But the rural poor are obliged to
pay the rural rich (who, according to their own published figures, earn
nothing) through their taxes, just as in pre-revolutionary France.

There's no possible rational justification for this.

Myself, I'd be inclined to just take all the land back into communal
ownership without compensation, but if that's too radical, just impose a
land tax so swinging that they can't afford to pay it. In the meantime,
the Land Reform Act asserts the fact that the community - that's
everyone - has inalienable rights over all the land, whoever has the
usufruct of it. I absolutely support that.

Quoted message said:

Maybe they should knock down Niddrie and replace it with sheep farms,
in that case.

And that would benefit whom?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; my other religion is Emacs

In article <[email hidden]>, Simon

Brooke () said:

What is this concept of 'other people's land'? As far as I'm aware, God
made all the land, and He didn't give it to anyone in particular.

YA Gerrard Winstanley AICMFP.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Stop press! Pope still dead...

in message <[email hidden]>, Dave

Larrington (') said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Simon

Brooke () said:

What is this concept of 'other people's land'? As far as I'm aware,
God made all the land, and He didn't give it to anyone in particular.

YA Gerrard Winstanley AICMFP.

A fan of his, certainly.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I'll have a proper rant later, when I get the time.

Simon Brooke said:

What is this concept of 'other people's land'? As far as I'm aware, God
made all the land, and He didn't give it to anyone in particular. Very
little of the land in Scotland was enclosed with any pretence of
legality, and even in England the legitimacy of the enclosure of the
commons is pretty doubtful.

Does your concept of common ownership extend to all other possessions,
which are, after all, derived from the land. If so I'll pop round later
to borrow your ^H^H^H^H our bike and I have a friend who would like to
live in your ^H^H^H^H our house for a few months ;-)

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Quoted message said:

Does your concept of common ownership extend to all other possessions,
which are, after all, derived from the land.

How much work did you put into the land to get those possessions? e.g.
wild fruit might be considered fair game, but it might be considered unfair
to take fruit from a cultivated tree.